On Thursday, October 18, 2001, at 02:15 PM, Jan-Arve Saether wrote:
> After a brief look at the tests, I am still missing some important
> tests (I am not sure how many new tests have been added since the NIST
> tests)
>
> I am missing tests that actually test *all* functions on an interface,
> including testing methods on interfaces that was inherited, even if they
> make no sense.
>
[dd] Pretty early on, there was an implicit understanding that not all
facets of a particular method could be tested as this introduces an
ever-growing set of tests that would need to be written.
I'm not all too happy about this, so please provide any feedback/ideas
on how we could solve this (for practical reasons, however, we are
limiting the TS to testing the most basic functions of each method).
> (For example, Text::getChildNodes should return a NodeList with no
> nodes.
> The same goes for ProcessingInstruction::getFirstChild etc. The list
> goes
> on.)
>
> What we have done where I am working is to test absolutely all functions
> on one interface, and then test if the method behaves as expected.
> (E.g test if Text::getFirstChild returns NULL etc.)
>
> I consider a conformance test to be incomplete if such tests are not
> included.
>
> Are somebody working on this issue?
>
> Best regards
> Jan-Arve SÂ ther
>